See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/26455156

Research in Distance Education: A Status Report

Article  in  International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning · July 2000

DOI: 10.19173/irrodl.v1i1.4 · Source: DOAJ

CITATIONS READS

132 633

1 author:

Farhad Saba
San Diego State University
50 PUBLICATIONS   708 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A Transactional Distance Approach to Planning the Future of Higher Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Farhad Saba on 02 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning c
ISSN: 1492-3831
Vol. 1, No. 1 (June 2000)

Research in Distance Education: A Status Report

Farhad Saba

Abstract

Since the 1950s and expansion of social science research, distance edu-
cation has been studied in comparison to face-to-face or classroom in-
struction. Although researchers continue to conduct comparative studies,
their usefulness in revealing more information has diminished over the
years; invariably, they have returned a “no significant difference” result
between various forms of instruction. In recent years, researchers have
moved beyond atheoretical, experimental comparative studies and have
introduced new methods, such as discourse analysis, and in-depth inter-
view of learners. These new methods overcome many methodological and
theoretical limitations of the physical science view of distance education.
These studies have further revealed the complexity of distance educa-
tion, indicating the many variables involved in the concept. Starting with
the core issue of instructional interaction and grounded on the theory of
transactional distance, a new strand of research using methods related to
systems dynamics, hierarchy and complexity theories, promises a more
comprehensive understanding.

What is Research?

The purpose of this article is to present a coherent view of the state of research
in distance education. As such, it is appropriate to clarify what is meant by
research first.

Traditionally, research has been synonymous with the scientific method; and
in education, until recently, experimentation has been the dominant mode of
inquiry (Best, 1977). Experimental research was the method by which physical
sciences obtained their dramatic results in the last century and achieved their
current status.

Originally designed for the laboratory where the environment could be carefully
controlled, experimental research found its way to social sciences where labora-
tory conditions were difficult, if not impossible to obtain. As such, researchers
adopted the idea of random selection of their subjects to control for the effect
of the experimental variable. In other words, if members of only one of two
groups of randomly selected subjects are exposed to an experimental variable
(e.g., distance education), and if the test scores of the experimental group show
Research in Distance Education: A Status Report 2

a difference as compared to the control group, then the chances are that the
difference can be attributed to the experimental variable.

However, in education research most classrooms are pre-selected by factors other

than experimental requirements. As such, the concept of experimental research
was modified and acquired the name of quasi-experimental research to reflect
this change. So far, distance education research has been dominated by quasi-
experimental research which compares the effectiveness of distance education to
classroom instruction, face-to-face education, or traditional education.

Comparative Studies

Since the rapid expansion of instructional television in the 1950s and the ascen-
dance of social science research after the Second World War, comparing distance
education with the so-called face-to-face education has been a favorite of educa-
tion researchers. In the 1960s, Wilbur Schramm conducted studies which com-
pared instructional television (ITV) with classroom instruction. Also, Schramm
(1962) summarized the results of more than 400 “scientifically designed and sta-
tistically treated comparisons of ITV and classroom teaching” (p. 66). He con-
cluded: “we can say confidently that students learn from it, and that they learn
fast and efficiently” (p. 66). Furthermore, “the conclusion has been ‘no signifi-
cant difference’ between learning from television, and from classroom teaching”
(p. 66).

After Schramm arrived at this conclusion many other researchers have com-
pared classroom instruction to distance education. A recent example is a study
conducted by Johnson, Aragon, Shaik, and Palma-Rivas (2000). Researchers in
this study compared learning outcomes of an online course with a similar course
taught face-to-face. The study concluded that “there was no difference between
the two course formats in several measures of learning outcomes” (Johnson et
al., 2000, p. 29). Wetzel, Radtke, and Stern (1994) have summarized the re-
sults of comparative studies until the mid 1990s. Invariably, comparative studies
of distance education and classroom instruction show “no statistically signifi-
cant difference.” Another recent meta-analysis of 19 studies out of an original
pool of 700, which met the carefully selected criteria of authors, Machtmes and
Asher (2000) confirmed previous conclusions that “there does not appear to be
a difference in achievement between distance and traditional learners” (p. 43).

An Absence of Theory

Absent from most comparative research in distance education is a discussion of

theoretical foundations of the field. Research questions are rarely posed within

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning

Research in Distance Education: A Status Report 3

a theoretical framework or based on its fundamental concepts and constructs.

Although research within a theoretical framework is not a requirement for in-
ductive inquiry, a post facto theoretical discussion of research results would be
helpful in making studies relevant to the work of other researchers, and possibly
even to the practitioners in the field. Comparative researchers, however, have
shown little or no interest in the theoretical literature of the field either before
or after conducting their studies.

Theory-based Research

In the past ten years, however, a few researchers have conducted rigorous stud-
ies that are based on theoretical foundations of the field, or theories of fields
closely related to distance education. Fulford and Zhang (1993) studied learner
perception of interaction in instruction and concluded that perception of the
level of interaction is a critical predictor of learner satisfaction. They stated
“overall interaction dynamics may have a stronger impact on learners’ satis-
faction than strictly personal participation. Vicarious interaction may result in
greater learner satisfaction than would the divided attention necessary to ensure
the overt engagement of each participant” (Fulford & Zhang, 1993, p. 19). The
ramification of this conclusion for instructional design is to devise strategies to
increase and improve learner perception of overall interaction.

Gunawardena (1995) studied the ramification of social presence theory for com-
munity building in computer mediated conferencing (CMC). She concluded: “in
spite of the low social context cues of the medium, student perceptions of the
social and human qualities of the medium will depend on the social presence cre-
ated by the instructors/moderators and the online community” (Gunawardena,
1995, p. 164). Tsui and Ki (1996) studied social factors affecting computer me-
diated communication at the University of Hong Kong. The study revealed that
communications among participants were bilateral. Some participants stated
that they were reluctant to enter a dialog started by two participants, since
they might have been considered as “intruders.” Also, researchers pointed to
the relative lack of knowledge of the participants about CMC, highlighting ear-
lier findings by Fulford and Zhang (1993), as well as Gunawardena (1995) that
interaction strategies must be built into the design of a course or instructional
session for it to be effective.

McDonald and Gibson (1998) studied group development in asynchronous com-

puter conferencing through patterns of interpersonal interaction of participants.
They concluded that participants could deal with and resolve interpersonal is-
sues in an asynchronous teaching and learning environment and form a cohesive
working group.

Chen and Willits (1999) conducted their study in a synchronous videoconferenc-

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning

Research in Distance Education: A Status Report 4

ing environment, and showed that the concept of interaction in this and other
similar environments is multidimensional and includes “in-class discussion, out-
of-class electronic communication, and out-of-class face-to-face interaction” (p.
61). The study was grounded in Moore’s theoretical analysis of independent
learning as well as interaction in distance education, classified into three cat-
egories of teacher-student, student-instructional material, and student-student
interactions (Moore, 1989).

Interaction: A Common Theme

A common theme in distance education research is the concept of interaction,

which indicates its centrality in conceptualizing the process of teaching and
learning. Furthermore, these studies are mostly paradigmatic. That is, their
discussion of interaction transcends the idea of distance in its physical sense,
and embraces the discussion of teaching and learning in general. The fact that
in mediated education the teacher and learner might be physically separated is
secondary to the consideration of factors affecting quality of their interaction.
By being paradigmatic, this line of research also negates the implied assumption
in most comparative studies that there is meaningful interaction in the classroom
merely by the virtue of the physical proximity of the teacher and the student.

Beyond the Confines of the Experimental Method

Another consideration in distance education research is its methodology. The

definition of research presented at the beginning of this article was limited to
the transference of experimental method from physical to social sciences. The
pure experimental method, it was mentioned, had to be modified to quasi-
experimental to fit the special consideration of education research. In the new
lines of research outlined above, new methods are employed which, although
empirical and data-driven, go beyond the narrow confines of experimentation.
These new methods cast a wider net for capturing the data generated by the
interaction between the teacher and the learner in both of its qualitative and
quantitative forms.

These researchers used student self-reporting through a survey study, (Fulford &
Zhang, 1993; Gunawardena, 1995), extensive interviewing of students (McDon-
ald & Gibson, 1998), conversation and discourse analysis (Chen & Willits 1999;
Tsui & Ki, 1996) or a combination of these methods to collect the necessary data.
These methods indicate a clear break from the traditional scientific method and
experimental studies for understanding important factors in distance teaching
and learning. Furthermore, these studies are focused on a smaller group of sub-
jects, but take a deeper look at the subjects’ verbal and written behaviors. This

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning

Research in Distance Education: A Status Report 5

is in sharp contrast to the methods employed by quasi-experimental researchers

who sought to eliminate individual differences between the control and experi-
mental groups in order to measure and demonstrate the effect of the treatment.
This is an important step in refining research methods in distance education,
and capturing a wider and richer range of data.

Theory Building and Research

Researchers, therefore, are showing increased attention to methodological issues,

within the framework of the appropriate theoretical foundations to their studies.
This is apparent from theoretical and methodological articles which have been
published in recent years. These strands of literature are analytical in nature and
provide the necessary interplay between theory and research which a maturing
field needs in order to bolster its foundations.

For example, Smith and Dillon (1999) revisited the issue of comparing distance
learning and classroom learning and suggested a framework for “defining cate-
gories of attributes embedded within each delivery system and the media used
by the delivery system that may support learning in different ways” (p. 19).
The authors thought that a new set of categories and “clearly defined constructs
of both media and delivery systems” (Smith & Dillon, p. 20) would facilitate
comparative studies, and might cure the “no significant difference” syndrome.

Cookson and Chang (1995) drew from previous research and theory in small-
group interaction analysis, classroom interaction analysis, and audioconferenc-
ing to “develop an instrument appropriate for the tabulation, analysis and inter-
pretation” (p. 18) of audioconferences. Gibson (1996) depicted various aspects
of academic self-concept as a construct related to persistence, and curbing at-
trition in distance education.

Also, Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) continued the study Gunawardena had
initiated and reported in 1995, and presented further data, adding a more elab-
orate method of analysis. Likewise, Sherry, Fulford, and Zhang (1998) presented
a follow up study to Fulford and Zhang (1993). This continuity in research is
noteworthy, since it is rare in the literature of distance education.

Advancing the Field

Comparative studies were grounded in the physical science paradigm and its
related experimental method. They required reduction of experimental concepts
to their simplest form, and elimination of environmental elements to establish a
direct cause and effect relationship between the experimental stimulus and the

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning

Research in Distance Education: A Status Report 6

response emitted by the subjects in mass. Furthermore, subjects in these studies

were treated as a group, and their individual differences in learning aptitude,
and prior knowledge of the subject matter were ignored or eliminated so that
the experimental and control groups would be rendered comparable!

Focusing on interaction and looking at learning and other instructional out-

comes, such as learner satisfaction, researchers cited above have:

• stepped beyond the experimental method, and its ancillary comparative

studies
• grounded their studies on theoretical foundations of the field
• used new methods of inquiry, such as discourse analysis

They have thus made valuable contributions to the field, and have moved re-
search in distance education to higher grounds.

Comprehending the Field

These efforts in theory-based research, unlike earlier atheoretical comparative

studies, reveal the complexity of distance education. The studies mentioned
so far were concerned with learning outcomes and interaction in instructional
settings. As much as it is central to any educational endeavor, the field of dis-
tance education goes beyond instruction, and includes a host of other concerns
such as, management and cost-effectiveness, instructional design, evaluation, as
well as legal, social and international issues, just to name a few. One of the
major challenges of researchers in distance education in the future will be to de-
vise methods of data collection and analysis that correspond to the theoretical
complexity of the field.

Starting with the core issue of instructional interaction in distance education,

and grounding their study in the theoretical concept of transactional distance,
Saba and Shearer (1994) used discourse analysis for data collection, and a sys-
tems dynamics simulation method for analyzing the data. A systems method
for data analysis was selected in order to be able to respond to the complex-
ity of concepts and variables in distance education. In sharp contrast to the
experimental method, systems as a method of inquiry allows researchers to col-
lect data from various sources such as management and legislation, and to study
their ramifications on instruction and learning outcomes, as well as several other
systems variables. Systems methodology also provides a platform for integrat-
ing concepts in hierarchy theory, as well as complexity theory, and for study
of learning at a distance as a self-adaptive, non-linear activity of the learner.
Based on the 1994 study, these methods are currently being refined to ensure

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning

Research in Distance Education: A Status Report 7

inclusion of individual differences. It is anticipated that this research will lead

to development of personalized, self-adaptive learning systems.

Summary and Conclusions

Since the 1950s and expansion of social science research, distance education
has been studied in comparison to face-to-face or classroom instruction. Al-
though researchers continue to conduct comparative studies, their usefulness
in revealing more information has diminished over the years; invariably, they
have returned a finding of “no significant difference” between various forms of
instruction.

In recent years, researchers have moved beyond experimental comparative stud-

ies and have introduced new methods, such as discourse analysis, and in-depth
interview of learners. These new methods not only afford a theoretical frame-
work to these studies, something that was lacking in atheoretical comparative
studies, they also bypass many methodological and theoretical limitations of the
physical science view of distance education.

These studies have further revealed the complexity of distance education, indi-
cating the many variables involved in any instructional setting, not to mention
other elements involved in distance education, such as social, economic, and
global issues affecting the field.

Starting with the core issue of instructional interaction and grounded on the
theory of transactional distance, a new strand of research using methods related
to systems dynamics, as well as hierarchy and complexity theories, promises to
provide a more comprehensive understanding of the field.

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning

Research in Distance Education: A Status Report 8

References

Best, W. J. (1977). Research in education. (3rd. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Chen, Y-J., & Willits. F. K. (1999). Dimensions of educational transactions in a

videoconferencing learning environment. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 13(1), 45-59.

Cookson, P. S., & Chang, Y. (1995). The multidimensional audioconferencing

classification system (MACS). The American Journal of Distance Education,
9(3), 18-36.

Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perception of interaction: The critical pre-
dictor in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education,
7(3), 8-21.

Gibson, C. C. (1996). Toward an understanding of academic self-concept in

distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 10(1),
23-35.

Gunawardena, C. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction

and collaborative learning in computer conferencing. International Journal
of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2-3), 147-166.

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor

of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26.

Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Compara-
tive analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-
to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research,
11(1), 29-49.

Machtmes, K., & Asher, J.W. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness

of telecourses in distance education. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 14(1), 27-46.

McDonald, J., & Gibson, C. C. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics and group

development in computer conferencing. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 12(1), 7-25.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of transaction. In M. G. Moore, & G. C.

Clark (Eds.), Readings in principles of distance education (pp. 100-105).
University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Saba, F., & Shearer, R. L. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a

dynamic model of distance education. The American Journal of Distance

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning

Research in Distance Education: A Status Report 9

Education, 8(1), 36-59.

Schramm, W. (1962). What we know about learning from instructional tele-

vision. In Educational television: The next ten years. Stanford CA: The
Institute for Communication Research, Stanford University.

Sherry, A. C., Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1998). Assessing distance learners’
satisfaction with interaction: A quantitative and a qualitative measure. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 12(3), 4-28.

Smith, P. L., & Dillon, C. L. (1999). Comparing distance learning and classroom
learning: Conceptual considerations. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 13(2), 6-23.

Tsui, A. B. M., & Ki, W. W. (1996). An analysis of conference interactions on

TeleNex – A computer network for ESL teachers. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 44(4), 23-44.

Wetzel. D. D., Radtke, P. H., & Stern, H. W. (1994). Instructional effectiveness

of video media. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Citation Format

Saba, Farhad (2000) Research in Distance Education: A Status Report. International Review
of Research in Open and Distance Learning: 1, 1. http://www.icaap.org/iuicode?149.1.1.3

View publication stats

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning